So, I was listening to an excellent local political analyst whom we are fortunate to have in our area and who occasionally does radio work, guest-hosting for local talk shows and such. He happens to be a Harvard MBA and former corporate CEO, and is also another East Coast transplant to the region (such as myself). This may be part of the reason I identify with his perspective.

This gentleman was discussing ongoing national political developments with a local radio talk-show host, and I found what he articulated to be insightful (as I usually do); indeed, this guy would be an asset to any presidential administration because he is not only sharp as a tack, but has the ability to be objective even in the face of hyperbolic opponents and, more importantly, hyperbolic members of his own political constituency. On this occasion, there were some opinions he had that I found singularly gratifying to hear.

The gist of this person’s conversation with the radio host centered around his opinion that it would behoove the Trump administration to aggressively and even ruthlessly pursue the prosecution of those former Obama administration operatives who materially participated in the clandestine surveillance of Trump’s campaign last year, those who are engaged in the sabotage of the new administration and those progressive ideologues in positions of power who continue to support the radical Obama-era agenda, even to the point of breaking the law. An example of this would be the mayors of sanctuary cities who, instead of falling into line with immigration law, have chosen to become activists in the cause of sanctuary cities.

“So it’s not just me,” I thought, concerning the propriety of the Trump administration aggressively prosecuting this potpourri of radical operatives, particularly when one considers the fact that these people and organizations have acted subversively and, in some cases, with criminal intent.

As I said last week in this space, second-guessing President Trump as regards his strategies is likely to prove to be folly, because the man is a very savvy operator with a keen insight into human behavior. However, I suspect that there are elements of over-caution on the administration’s part that manifest in a certain tentativeness vis-à-vis addressing this issue. Part of this may be concern over the administration being perceived as attempting to sully the Obama legacy. Such action will probably remain impossible in the foreseeable future due to Obama’s ethnicity and underlying popular sympathies and trepidation in this area. Another aspect of the administration’s deportment may have to do with decorum; the tradition of administrations excusing the shortfalls of previous administrations is a matter of course.

That said, by way of comparison, we’ve never had a former president or administration that crafted a shadow administration and political infrastructure to continue its work once the chief executive had left office and which shamelessly worked to undermine the objectives of the new administration. Neither have we ever seen office holders of an opposition party and kindred activists acting illegally and in concert to the same ends.

This being the case, like our aforementioned local analyst, at this juncture, I believe that aggressive action – which would certainly be framed as draconian by the opposition – is most assuredly in order at this point.

When the state of Arizona passed a law requiring state and local police to investigate the immigration status of anyone they reasonably suspected of being an illegal immigrant, the Obama administration sued that state on the grounds that the law was unconstitutional. As we know, this premise was bunk, since Arizona’s law mirrored established federal statutes. Obama couldn’t criminally prosecute Arizona’s governor or anyone else, because their actions fell within the law.

In the case of activist sanctuary-city mayors who have poised themselves to fight Trump administration measures against sanctuary-city practices, these individuals are indeed breaking the law. While I am sure that jailing the mayors of these cities – even if the measure was interpreted as symbolic – would be about as controversial as it gets, it would reflect the Trump administration’s adherence to the rule of law, and it would demonstrate that the administration has no intention of supplanting the rule of law with subjective and destructive notions of political correctness.

In the case of Obama’s former National Security Adviser Susan Rice having allegedly “unmasked” private citizens during the course of the Obama administration’s investigation into the Trump campaign, her actions and evident subterfuge and those of other Obama operatives should be investigated and those responsible prosecuted by the current administration to the fullest extent of the law. In my view, this is the only sensible thing to do in light of the current political climate. If such a venture were to become a cavalcade of prosecutions and perp-walking former Obama Cabinet members on the nightly news, so be it.

The establishment press, far-left activists, liberal politicos and their dullard followers are going to frame everything the Trump camp does as illegal, unconstitutional, racist and omniphobic no matter what face the administration attempts to put on its agenda – so why not capitalize on the situation?

In so doing, Trump might not wind up with the vociferous support of conservatives who remain reticent in validating his conservative measures to date because he’s not a USDA-approved Grade A conservative, but I’d wager that the preponderance of Americans who voted for him would be unlikely to complain.

Media wishing to interview Erik Rush, please contact media@wnd.com.

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.